These include more personalization, a Settings app that doesn't force you to use the Control Panel, richer multitasking with more apps visible on-screen, multimonitor support for Metro apps, and unified search.

Also being brought back: the Start button. When running desktop applications—but not Metro applications—a Start button with a Windows logo will be on the taskbar and when clicked it will take you to the Start screen.

Windows 8's interface was in some ways over-simplified. The fixed split, for example, was not without its merits. It forced developers to consider how to design their interfaces for a narrow view. As a result, many apps have well-designed snap views. This is in contrast to most desktop applications: although desktop applications are generally freely resizable, most applications don't handle this at all elegantly. Give an application a small window and all too often its toolbars get truncated and its document area gets shrunk to near-nothingness.

Enlarge/ The split view that allows the simultaneous use of multiple Metro apps is now flexible, allowing you to pick how screen space is apportioned.

Microsoft

But the fixed split is also limiting. For example, the lack of a 50-50 split (as used on the desktop since Windows 7 introduced Aero Snap) meant that it was difficult to use the split view for two applications that are equal peers—say, a browser used for research on one side of the screen and a mail client on the other. The flexible split should allow this kind of working. We'll just have to hope that developers don't forget about the importance of adjusting their user interfaces to cope with narrow windows.

I'm not sure, however, that all the changes are worthwhile. The pressure to reinstate the Start button was immense. Its removal was, and still is, widely complained about and many complainants will no doubt feel vindicated at its return. But it's the wrong thing to do.

The problem is this: Metro apps themselves—including things like the Settings app, Search, and the Start screen itself—don't show a taskbar and won't have a Start button. While many users will, no doubt, continue to use the desktop for much of their work, the use of these things is (third-party software excepted) unavoidable. As such, unless Microsoft does something even more radical, such as make the taskbar a permanent on-screen fixture, Windows 8.1 users cannot depend on being able to see a Start button.

Windows 8 was consistent in this regard. There was never a Start button in the bottom left corner. You always had to use the Windows key on your keyboard, or the Windows key on your tablet, or the Windows key on your mouse, or the Windows logo in the charms menu, or the bottom left hot corner. Whether in a Metro app or on the desktop, the set of tools available to get into the Start screen was uniform.

By backing down and reinstating the taskbar's Start button, Microsoft is making an interface that lacks this consistency. You'll be able to look for, and use, that on-screen visual clue sometimes. Some of the time it will be there. Some of the time it won't. Users of Windows 8.1 will still have to learn about the hot corners, or the charms, or the keyboard buttons, or the mouse buttons, or the tablet buttons, because they'll have to use them when they're in Metro apps. Putting the taskbar button back doesn't remove the need for that knowledge. And yet, for anyone who has learned that knowledge, the button itself is entirely unnecessary.

The problem with Windows 8's lack of Start button was not the removal of the button per se: it was the absolutely abysmal job that Redmond did of telling people what to do instead. Yes, anyone reading this site is likely to know what the Windows keys on their keyboard are for and probably uses them habitually anyway. But that's probably not true of the wider computer using audience. Those people are conditioned to look for a Start button. Changing the way that they invoke the Windows application launcher (be it Start menu or Start screen) requires education, and except for a brief tutorial that's woefully inadequate, Microsoft has done nothing to attempt to educate users.

This is unlike the way that Microsoft introduced the Start button way back in 1995. Windows 95 contained a variety of visual cues to remind users what to do. Windows 8 had nothing. It left new users high and dry—and if Windows 8.1 continues to depend on hot corners and other techniques to invoke the Start screen from within Metro apps, it too will leave new users high and dry.

The Start button isn't the only victim of this poor education: the company has done precious little to explain what charms are or how they work. Likewise app bars. However, apps can to some extent overcome this, for example by including magnifying glass search icons within the application, to allow users to search without having to know how to invoke the search charm. The Start button offers no such easy in-app solution.

On top of all this, if Microsoft thinks that putting back the Start button will put an end to the complaints about Windows 8, it's sorely mistaken. While many mourn the loss of the Start button, many more mourn the loss of the Start menu. They don't just want the button back; they want to be rid of the Start screen itself. For that group, merely bringing back the button misses the point.

Enlarge/ The Windows 8.1 Start screen allows for bigger tiles such as the pretty weather app, smaller tiles such as the quartet in the upper right corner, and the use of the desktop background.

Microsoft

Some of the other changes that Windows 8.1 will bring may go some way toward appeasing those calling for the return of the Start menu; the better customization, the ability to default to all programs view, and the unified search results all redress some of the Start screen's deficits relative to the Start menu. But for those who regard the Start screen's full-screen nature as a deal-breaker, nothing short of the return of the Start menu is likely to matter.

Ignoring Metro isn’t an option

One confounding factor is the use of Metro apps in general. I've heard it argued that it doesn't matter that Metro apps don't include a Start button because desktop users won't, in general, use Metro apps and so will never get "trapped" inside them. In some ways, there's some truth to this. The first generation of Metro apps, especially those for core tasks such as e-mail, is weak, giving relatively little incentive for anyone to use them.

This isn't, however, an intrinsic, inevitable feature of Metro apps. The built-in Mail client doesn't support POP3, for example, but that has nothing to do with Metro and everything to do with Microsoft being unable or unwilling to use its existing POP3 code in the Metro mail client. While there are still certain omissions and limitations to the Mail app, the March update made it a great deal more useful, and one could easily see it becoming a solid, useful, usable app that is good for both touch users and mouse users. Metro isn't standing in the way of that.

And once the apps, especially those core built-in apps, become good enough that people want to use them, they'll have to face the whole "how do I get out of this app" problem. A problem that isn't solved by putting the Start button on the taskbar.

Similarly, the problems with the charms and app bars aren't solved by a Start button.

I'd also argue that Microsoft has a strong incentive to get even traditional, non-touch device users interested in using Metro apps. The only way to establish a thriving, successful marketplace of Metro apps is to ensure that there are lots of people using Metro apps. Right now, there aren't. Microsoft peculiarly boasts of just 250 million app downloads, and while that does sound like a reasonably big number, when divided between the 100 million Windows 8 licenses the company has sold, it doesn't sound so big any more: it sounds like Windows 8 users are downloading 2-3 Metro apps and then giving up entirely.

This might not be fatal for the desktop, but it cripples Microsoft's tablet ambitions. Windows 8 (and its ARM sibling, Windows RT) do actually work—and work well—on tablets. But they're hamstrung by a shortage of high-quality Metro software. Microsoft needs Metro to be taken as seriously as developers take the iPad if it wants to be able to compete in this space. Creating Metro apps that all Windows users find useful will go a long way toward achieving that.

Rather than backing down and putting back this superfluous, redundant button, Microsoft should instead be educating. People can learn new interfaces. They did with Windows 95. They did with the iOS (which, let's not forget, also bucked trends by having no on-screen home button, relying instead on a hardware button or touch gestures—just like Windows 8, in other words). They just have to be taught. It's about time Microsoft tried.

608 Reader Comments

I have absolutely no desire whatsoever to upgrade to Windows 8. I remember the days of Active Desktop on Windows 95, I played around with it briefly and then turned it off because it was mostly unnecessary and obnoxious. I tried the Windows 8 release candidate on my current laptop and found Metro to be even more obnoxious because it cannot be turned off. Windows 8 with Metro is schizophrenic at best, Metro serves only as a distraction that interferes with actual productivity. When I log on to Windows I want to be able to click a small unobtrusive icon that loads my word processor or browser and lets me get down to writing or seeking out information. I also want to be able to easily and intuitively find default installed system utilities and applications, so I know what I've got to work with. I don't want to be confronted with an ugly, giant set of confusing tiles, mostly consisting of links to shitty web "apps" that aren't nearly half as good as what I can find on my own through directly accessing specific websites. Metro may make sense for tablets and phones, but why is Microsoft forcing this on desktop users who primarily work with a mouse and keyboard. I can't imagine anyone thinking that Metro is good for office workers or students.

Metro cheapens the user experience and makes me feel like I'm using a mall kiosk rather than a personal computer.

Win 8.x is like a "trike". It simply doesn't work to be useful and pleasing to a broad audience.

This thoughtful article again (as so many others before) points right to the main issue of Win8.x ... you can't mix and match two GUIs with completely different philosophies !!! And furthermore try to make that all seamless. No way. You can either go traditional or fully touch, but you have to decide for one and only one.

All that MS does is tinkering and botching which unfortunately doesn't remedy the basic underlying problem.It's like going from a 4 wheel automobile to a 2 wheel motorbike in smooth transitions. I admit there are so called "trikes" but for a good reason did they never made it to serious vehicles.

I don't see what the big deal is. Every single desktop is attached to a touchscreen now and this OS is called Windows Touch to denote that it's not really meant for those tiny few who still use a keyboard and mouse, right?

I agree that Microsoft needs to do a better job at educating the consumer. Commercials that show a company's meeting burst into break dancing, music and device throwing don't help my wife understand why Windows 8 is important. She just thinks the dancing looks kinda cool. Microsoft has done a poor job on selling Windows 8 and 100 million licenses doesn't translate into 100 million devices in user's hands.

I was confused why Acer includes an app that just have a few icons to hibernate, sleep, restart and shutdown and pin it in the task bar... I mean, it was not exactly hard to find those button right? until I realized shut down in Win 8 does not actually shut down the computer so the app allows user to shut down the computer easier.

This thing is horrible.

EDIT: I am not sure what's the point of having a "Start Button" that directs you to the metro screen. People hate metro, so let's make it even easier to get there....

how about when I "close" an application, it actually gets closed. I do not like to have to go to the top left corner, wait for that bar to open to see if it is still running, (happens fairly quickly) then manually close the application/app/program that way. Whatever happened to an "X" button's definition?

Because surely, when people find that the absence of the start menu (and the specific things it let you do, which the start screen does not), then it is simply because those users are less intelligent than Peter Bright.

It can't possibly be that Microsoft should consider making that functionality available again (whether as a start menu or screen or something entirely different).

No, it's just that users who aren't Peter Bright are dumb, and need to be "educated".

Ugh...

It would be nice if you at least *pretended* to discuss the issue seriously. Because I largely agree with your premise. There is nothing sacred about the start menu, and if Microsoft thinks they can replace it with something better, more power to them.

But in doing that, it would be reasonable to expect them to actually try to make it equally powerful and useful.

But no, let's not even consider that. The root cause is just "users who aren't me are stoopid". Oh, and they hate change.

Yeah...

I must say though, I find it hilarious that you use consistency as an argument in favor of the Windows 8 approach. Because there is very little consistency in how I get yanked into the Metro world when I'm in the desktop world and try to launch a desktop application.

Ideally, I'd argue they should just provide multiple views of the start screen/menu. It's already the same underlying database of program shortcuts that is used by the start screen and *was* used by the start menu. So why not provide the start screen view of this database when I'm in Metro world, and a desktop-ified view (not necessarily a start *menu*, just something that is a first-class citizen of the desktop world) when I'm in desktop world?

Heck, they're already doing this for the control panel: they realized how unintuitive and crippling it was to force users into the desktop world when they wanted to change system settings. So Windows 8.1 will have Metro views of those settings as well.So why not do the same for the start <whatever>?

They're not really bringing back the start button, they're just putting a Windows logo in the corner that starts Metro.

Metro is bad. It is full-out bad for computing. Ars, you are probably very, very dependent on free software, both for your business and your personal lives, and Metro is an existential threat to everything that has made your company and your livelihoods possible. Pushing Metro, telling people to add Microsoft-controlled DRM to their operating systems, is very much like telling them to add dioxin to their food.

Think, for a minute, just how little of the modern Web would even exist if, at every step, someone had been required to ask Microsoft's permission to make their software.

I'm not normally one for the RMS, everything-must-be-free view of software, but importing the phone/tablet "please sir, may I install software?" approach to desktop/laptop computers really is a consumer-hostile move which deserves to be a fiasco for Microsoft.

Because surely, when people find that the absence of the start menu (and the specific things it let you do, which the start screen does not), then it is simply because those users are less intelligent than Peter Bright.

A worrying number of journalists do seem to think that preferring the "my first computer" interface of Windows 8 is a sign of intelligence. See also Ars reviews of Ubuntu Unity.

This thoughtful article again (as so many others before) points right to the main issue of Win8.x ... you can't mix and match two GUIs with completely different philosophies !!! And furthermore try to make that all seamless. No way. You can either go traditional or fully touch, but you have to decide for one and only one.

Metro (without the offensive DRM) could work if it was like the Media Centre interface in previous versions of Windows. Those who have the specific hardware the interface is designed for (a tablet-laptop for Win8, an HTPC connected to a television for MCE), or who lack the technical ability to use a full-featured operating system, could opt to turn it on. This would be greatly preferable to imposing it on everyone else.

Hyperbole much? Windows is still open. Meanwhile people here and in the press are absolutely giddy with joy that iOS is capturing the consumer computing market from MS. Now THAT would be an absolute disaster for computing. An iOS dominated world where you has have to ask Apple if you can write software. You can still do what you want with Windows.

What if you want to write Metro UI software? How do you do that without paying Microsoft a tax on the revenue from your software?

My argument/rant/complaint/Windows 8 rejection of the lack of a Start button has always been on its functionality. What Redmond wants to do is simply place a SHORTCUT on the taskbar. WTF? Again, they heard wrong.

Referring to the article about the majority of users using the desktop, the Start button should be like it was in the past: a root to all things on the user's computer. So, now it is going to take me back to the Metro screen? So, I would still have to find my app by scrolling through all these stupid tiles?

Here's the big picture... The start button of old was a starting navigation point for users. It allowed a user to quickly click through menus that were ALPHABETIZED. The new start button will take users back to the ridiculous metro screen that many people are being forced to use. I find it hard to understand why it is so difficult to give users the choice rather than forcing them to user Metro.

By default, the physical power button is configured to sleep the computer.

Often, that isn't what users want. They want to shut down the computer. To do so (with the default UI), they need to use the Charm Bar.

...and after finding the charms bar, then navigating to the shutdown button. When I turned my new laptop on for the first time, I had to figure out that I had to swipe down on the "Welcome" clock screen. And I had to search online for where the charms bar was to shut down. I know, sounds noobish, but that's to say how "intuitive" the interface is to someone that had never used the new OS.

Now that ive gotten used to it, I want to like it, but i still prefer win7 on my desktop.

My argument/rant/complaint/Windows 8 rejection of the lack of a Start button has always been on its functionality. What Redmond wants to do is simply place a SHORTCUT on the taskbar. WTF? Again, they heard wrong.

Referring to the article about the majority of users using the desktop, the Start button should be like it was in the past: a root to all things on the user's computer. So, now it is going to take me back to the Metro screen? So, I would still have to find my app by scrolling through all these stupid tiles?

Here's the big picture... The start button of old was a starting navigation point for users. It allowed a user to quickly click through menus that were ALPHABETIZED. The new start button will take users back to the ridiculous metro screen that many people are being forced to use.

Conclusion: STILL HATE WINDOWS 8.

if there was an option to either use metro or classic windows, I would love this new os. I dont care really much for the new GUI, but under the hood, it is fairly impressive.

Wrong (in terms of convenience). Imagine using a desktop that is tucked away somewhere deep underneath your desk. It is precisely the generation you're criticising (or even one before that) who welcomed the ability to turn off the power on a PC *without* having to press a button. You may not remember, or maybe even haven't see them at all, but PCs used to have power buttons that actually had On and OFF positions and you *had* to toggle them to completely switch off your machine.

In other news, Apple is finally merging Mac OS and iOS for all of its platforms and devices, said no reporter ever.

I seem to recall Apple saying a couple of years ago that the goal was to move their desktop and mobile OSes closer together. Maybe not a complete merging of the user experience, but there would be (IIRC) some significant overlap.

Commenters, it's one thing to disagree. Your logical discourse, including in disagreement, is one of the reasons I come to Ars—I love how the comment threads are *never* the cesspool I can find elsewhere. But respect the right of the Ars staff to hold and share an opinion you disagree with.

I, for one, don't have an issue with Peter taking a different viewpoint. Where I took issue was when he dismissed everyone else's viewpoints by calling them whiners. Until then, I disagreed with his views but kept reading because they were presented in a logical fashion. Anything that came after that became a justification for the ad hominem. Words matter, and for anyone who writes for Ars should, that should be not merely known but effectively instinctive.

I'm not enthusiastic enough about Windows 8 to move my current system to it, but I may switch to it on my next computer build here in a month or two. I have used it, I can get around basically in it. I just didn't see the need to do all the backup and migration required to make the move. (Call me old-school--I still only use clean installations of Windows even though I tell most people that it's fine to upgrade unless switching to 64-bit.)

The problem with Metro is it is a bad fit for a non-touch desktop or laptop. Essentially MS has all these computers "obsolete" because they are not touch capable without considering whether they should even be touch capable.

Telling me as a user I must new hardware because of your UI design is not smart unless you plan to purchase my replacement equipment. I have no plans to upgrade any of my equipment, laptops or desktops with touch enabled screens. So MS has told me to permanently get lost. I will take the hint and replace Windows on all my devices.

I'm sorry that this post is going to be unpopular, but I actually like the new set up and design. I like the hot corners, I like the way the whole thing is set up. I can find things faster, and didn't need Google or Bing to figure out how to shut down my computer. I set the whole thing up myself and it was one of the fastest and most painless computer set ups I've ever done.

I get it, some people don't like change. That doesn't mean that the modern UI is bad, or the interface sucks - those are subjective claims. "For you" should be added to both. And that's fair, you don't have to like it. But don't assume that it is the end of the world, and don't assume to speak for everyone else.

In the end, the functionality regarding the Start menu is the same: put your mouse into the corner and click. Find your program. Click on program to open it up.

Honestly: who here uses the start menu with all the expanding options while at the same time reading a website or document. Seriously - I'm not asking to be snarky. I find when I'm in the Start Menu on my work computer (running XP), I'm just looking for the one thing and am ignoring everything else on my desktop. So for me, seeing or not seeing the desktop is a non-issue.

I've been using Windows 8 now since February - and I have to say, I like it. It is faster than Windows 7 on my machine, runs everything I need it to run, I can download and install third party software, and all the rest.

If you are reading through this thread and have never used Windows 8 before, my recommendation would be to try it. It is a really good system!

I often have videos running on another monitor, or chat windows I'm keeping an eye on, or I'm skyping with my wife while I'm doing some stuff. I'm not a big fan of those things dissapearing so I can click some 96x96 pixel icon for an app I could have just hit windows key and typed the first 3 letters of with no visual disruption at all. The hot corners, while maybe working great for you, tell me you're likely only using one monitor. I use 3 with either surround setup on them which makes me have to go to the extreme corners of the outside monitors, or disable surround and then I get hung up on every corner trying to change monitors. I've completely disabled the new start screen and have disabled all the charms and hot corners and I love windows 8 now. I tried it, it wasn't change I didn't like, it was the complete failure of usability for me.

It is entirely possible to "ignore Metro". I've been using Windows 8 for months now and I do not have a single app that I rely on in the Metro interface. Nor will I ever. I dislike the idea of a closed garden for software in Windows.

Start is Back is all you need to get it to look and work like Win 7, plus changing file associations to make certain that NONE of the Metro apps are default for any type of file.

And you get certain advantages. Win 8 is slightly faster overall, and is especially fast at booting up.

To turn on or off a hair-dryer, press the power button. To turn on or off your TV, press the power button. To turn on or off your monitor, press the power button. To turn on or off your DVR, press the power button. To turn on or "off" your phone, press the power button. To turn on or off your car, turn the key. To turn on or off your battery-operated battery-replacer (only good for changing its own batteries) press the power button.

TO TURN ON OR OFF WINDOWS 8, PRESS THE POWER BUTTON.

This is SOLELY an issue with a generation that had to wait for "It is now safe to turn off your computer." To anyone growing up now, we seem like complete idiots. And before you complain about remote desktop: No, when I SSH into a Linux machine, I do not know off the top of my head what the command is to turn it off.

My work PC still has HDD issues if I use the power button. Windows 7 in 2013. It's not generational, it's a function of using Windows. Macs had a usable power button decades ago iirc.

And btw, linux servers don't get shut down and don't need rebooting, that's why you don't know the command.

The problem with Metro is it is a bad fit for a non-touch desktop or laptop. Essentially MS has all these computers "obsolete" because they are not touch capable without considering whether they should even be touch capable.

Telling me as a user I must new hardware because of your UI design is not smart unless you plan to purchase my replacement equipment. I have no plans to upgrade any of my equipment, laptops or desktops with touch enabled screens. So MS has told me to permanently get lost. I will take the hint and replace Windows on all my devices.

I went to watch a movie on my laptop while waiting at the hospital, and had to wipe my screen of finger prints to view it properly due to reflection. I use the touchpad or mouse when I can, but sometimes it is faster, though inconvienient, to use the touch screen. I do not think multimedia was a thought when the decision was made to move to a purely touch environement. And before someone says "well you would have the same issue with a tablet!", yes, and I do, but that design is meant to be touched as its primary interface, not a monitor...

I'm sure they want Metro apps to succeed, they just want Windows 8 as a whole and their stock price to succeed more.

I like when companies do bold things, and overall I'm in favor of the look and feel of Metro, but forcing a touch and gesture based interface on a desktop and on most laptops is just bad UI design.

This same nonsense in every Win 8 thread. Win 8 does not force a touch and gesture based interface on a desktop. The keyboard/mouse support is incredibly robust, it just also has touch/gesture capability. I agree with the article.

It's ridiculous to assert that UI's should require no learning, every UI takes some getting used to, in the case of Win 8, the perceived change is far greater than the actual change.

Windows 8 with it's "hot corners" and "charms" is stupid, just plain stupid.

Peter. I put this to you. Imagine purchasing a microwave that had no labels, no buttons, just a slab of glass that you had to "guess" what does what.

Imagine purchasing a Hi-Fi, that again the interface was hidden until you pressed a random part of the display. Imagine anything that humans interact with that has no labels on it's interface.

One of the recurring issues was how to shut down a Windows 8 machine! Not being able to use the interface to shut down ANY device is a complete and utter disaster and just awful design.

Want to switch that Cooker off, well, we've hidden the off switch with swipes and gestures, we realise a simple off switch would be far simpler, but you're just living in the past, or unable to learn new ways of doing things if you don't like it.

Basically Ballmer decided that he would leverage Windows 8 to increase his Windows Phones Market Share. He really needs to be shown the door for this fiasco.

Microsoft should stick to what is delivered best all this years, user choice and freedom.

The only reasons why Windows was still most users based, is because they could modify every bit for it, or find a software that did that. Its about flexibility and customization.

Somewhere in the way Windows 8 lost that. Metro is not awful, but they cannot force something on corporate or desktop users. They created exactly the opposite effect. Otherwise please someone explain me how they even considered putting Metro on their Windows Server product. Really? On a server in a datacenter, Metro?

This just proves that Microsoft tries to force a product, not give the user the choice to use it. Metro makes sense in some interfaces, and it just does not in others. How hard would it be to have a smart wizard on the Windows Setup so the users choices what to to enable? Or what about detecting screen, touch and size and changing to that interface depending on that? Or just letting users jump or choose which one to use? No.

Microsoft decided this is the way to go alienating all their desktop users, people with keyboards mouse and multiple screen and corporate users.

Regardless of how so many users says Metro works with a keyboard only an idiot would assume such an interface makes sense on huge screen which are not touch. Everyone tries to save pixels here and there, efficiency on its best, and try to cut clicks and actions as much as they can and Metro goes exactly the opposite way. It jumps right into your face distracting you from work, its huge squares waste pixels on every sense, and it takes more time to do simple things. The worst is that feel like another system. How Microsoft could even consider in a world of multitasking to split Windows 8 in 2 different systems is beyond me.

One of the biggest flaws in Windows Phone was it had no multitasking, and then Microsoft does the same with Windows 8. You cannot share data between Metro or Desktop, and they work completely differently. A OS split in two which cuts which does not allow multitasking between. HEll, even running Linux on a VMworkstation machines lets you share data between Windows and Linux and Microsoft could not come with anything for Metro which proves they are to different OS merged together in a sloppy way.

Microsoft idea was how many people actually run multiple monitors? And we want the consumer on board....

Well surprise, surprise. Its the techies and geeks which bring technology forwards. Everyone asks me about Windows 8 and when I give my opinion, they just don't buy it. So alienate desktop users, techies and geeks, and you have right there a product failure. (see Android, made for geeks and everyone is using it now...)

For the simple reasons that this are the guys that use computers for hours and hours each day and know what is the best and more efficient way to do things in as less time as possible. Nobody works more just out of fun. Tablets are great, but one finger does not replace 10.

No, when I SSH into a Linux machine, I do not know off the top of my head what the command is to turn it off.

And btw, linux servers don't get shut down and don't need rebooting, that's why you don't know the command.

Not to mention that to shutdown a Linux PC from the command line you type - surprise, surprise! - "shutdown now" (works also if you open a terminal window in a GUI). This is something someone may actually try even before googling it.

Oh and in all Linux GUIs I used (Unity/Gnome 3 not included) the shutdown options were where you'd expect them to be.

Yeah, but MS is looking to move as many customers as possible to "Modern UI" world. Witness the fact that WinRT doesn't do Desktop apps at all.

Arguably, all that freedom was lost on most users as it simply led to them double clicking .exe they ever saw, but it's incorrect to think that freedom is not being lost.

The reason for that is primarily because none of the current apps are compatible with the Arm processors that don't run x86 code. Just like your iPad/Android tablet.

No. It is explicitly not possible to install desktop applications on RT: The only way to install apps on it is through the app store ... which only allows metro apps.

Caveats: a) Office is still a desktop app on RT, so the desktop is obviously still in there (at least partially).b) I believe it's possible to somehow hack it to allow arbitrary desktop apps. It seems to be about as popular with MS as jailbreaking iPhones is with Apple.

It still irks me that people complain about the least problematic parts of Windows 8 so much and utterly miss one of the biggest issues: the Windows Store is completely closed down. Now, I'm all for curated app stores (e.g. what OSX does), but I have a strict opposition to any ecosystem I can't side load apps into if needed (e.g. iOS). And even iOS has the excuse of being a mobile-focused OS, Windows 8 doesn't even have that. Until or unless Microsoft is willing to allow us to install whatever Metro apps we want, I hope it fails, and I hope it fails *hard*.

To turn on or off a hair-dryer, press the power button. To turn on or off your TV, press the power button. To turn on or off your monitor, press the power button. To turn on or off your DVR, press the power button. To turn on or "off" your phone, press the power button. To turn on or off your car, turn the key. To turn on or off your battery-operated battery-replacer (only good for changing its own batteries) press the power button.

TO TURN ON OR OFF WINDOWS 8, PRESS THE POWER BUTTON.

This is SOLELY an issue with a generation that had to wait for "It is now safe to turn off your computer." To anyone growing up now, we seem like complete idiots. And before you complain about remote desktop: No, when I SSH into a Linux machine, I do not know off the top of my head what the command is to turn it off.

My work PC still has HDD issues if I use the power button. Windows 7 in 2013. It's not generational, it's a function of using Windows. Macs had a usable power button decades ago iirc.

And btw, linux servers don't get shut down and don't need rebooting, that's why you don't know the command.

...unless your system freezes and you have to hold THE POWER BUTTON to turn it off, and please do not respond with apple and linux are so stable that it is not required...I work in a mixed system environment and I have seen non microsoft units lock up requiring the ability to use the power button.

and it is not soley an issue with a generation that had to wait for it is now safe to shutoff your computer, I am 30 years old and was unforunate enough to live through that era of computing, I do not care either way, but having the option to use a power button for what it is intended would be really nice.

I'm torn. Windows 8 with Classic shell installed is perfect when using big screen and multiple monitors. You get start button and in the design of your choice, including an actually usable file-explorer. You can even boot to desktop. Never seeing the metro interface at all. Eventhough that is a "hidden" feature to please MS.

On the other hand, Win8 should have made this type of option for desktop multiple monitor users available, if not even the auto-detected standard behavior. As a classic shell user the 8.1 features is still a long way off to making win8 acceptable as a whole though.

So the author thinks that Windows users should suffer with a poorly implemented touch interface on the millions of PC's that DON'T HAVE TOUCH!

Not to mention all of us with large, multi-monitor setups have arguable the WORST user experience with Windows 8.

And then don't let me get into the horrible search setup in Windows 8. You can no longer hit the windows key, type want you want, arrow down, and hit enter. Now it requires mouse clicks to do anything.

Sounds like the editor of this article doesn't actually work on their PC outside of typing. Try hooking up three 24+ inch displays and use 15 or so programs at any given time while having to do regular searches for other programs/docs/etc. Then come back and say Windows 8 is fine.

In other news, Apple is finally merging Mac OS and iOS for all of its platforms and devices, said no reporter ever.

I seem to recall Apple saying a couple of years ago that the goal was to move their desktop and mobile OSes closer together. Maybe not a complete merging of the user experience, but there would be (IIRC) some significant overlap.

Commenters, it's one thing to disagree. Your logical discourse, including in disagreement, is one of the reasons I come to Ars—I love how the comment threads are *never* the cesspool I can find elsewhere. But respect the right of the Ars staff to hold and share an opinion you disagree with.

I, for one, don't have an issue with Peter taking a different viewpoint. Where I took issue was when he dismissed everyone else's viewpoints by calling them whiners. Until then, I disagreed with his views but kept reading because they were presented in a logical fashion. Anything that came after that became a justification for the ad hominem. Words matter, and for anyone who writes for Ars should, that should be not merely known but effectively instinctive.

I'm not enthusiastic enough about Windows 8 to move my current system to it, but I may switch to it on my next computer build here in a month or two. I have used it, I can get around basically in it. I just didn't see the need to do all the backup and migration required to make the move. (Call me old-school--I still only use clean installations of Windows even though I tell most people that it's fine to upgrade unless switching to 64-bit.)

I think Apple's approach in its essence is that a Mac and an ipad and an iphone are all distinct physical objects whose software interaction should be considered separately. Their focus on distinct and specific hardware provides them an organizing principle to approach their software design. MS gets the cart before the horse in comparison. The ipod, iphone, and to a lesser extent ipad were all similar enough to share apps and to have the OS work the same way. The Mac is distinct, however. Both genres share elements when appropriate, not when it might be profitable. That is the right approach, and those distinctions HAVE to be drawn on a device by device basis. Even Google has taken this approach in a less disciplined manner.

On the same topic, MS is showing their relative software-focused obstinacy by putting Windows 8 on 8" devices instead of WP8, which was clearly conceived with small screen sizes in mind. A 5" phone screen is a lot closer in terms of software design than 11" tablet widescreen.

And I think their approach to the xbox demonstrates this, too, as they've drunkenly pivoted from blades to media center design to avatars, now to multitasking without a cohesive theory/philosophy of living room interaction. Perhaps the Kinect and Metro will bring coherency in time, however, I haven't seen that in the previews yet. I tend to think multitasking on a TV is as stupid as in a movie theatre - unless they're planning on xbox to become the 'Surface Desktop' or 'Surface Home Server' in some fashion.

So the author thinks that Windows users should suffer with a poorly implemented touch interface on the millions of PC's that DON'T HAVE TOUCH!

Not to mention all of us with large, multi-monitor setups have arguable the WORST user experience with Windows 8.

And then don't let me get into the horrible search setup in Windows 8. You can no longer hit the windows key, type want you want, arrow down, and hit enter. Now it requires mouse clicks to do anything.

Sounds like the editor of this article doesn't actually work on their PC outside of typing. Try hooking up three 24+ inch displays and use 15 or so programs at any given time while having to do regular searches for other programs/docs/etc. Then come back and say Windows 8 is fine.

As a call center employee, I can certainly agree that Microsoft needed to educate much better on how to use the new interface. Most of this work fell on us, as tech support for an ISP. I felt like video professor for months.

However, having to deal with the abysmal fallout that was Windows 8s launch, I cannot agree that continuing to force elderly and computer illiterate people to learn an interface that they are unfamiliar with is a good idea. People do not like change, especially people who expect to purchase a computer and have it work, not have to learn a totally new interface.

Someone who is tech savvy like myself can see the benefits, and the merits of Windows 8, I actually quite like it. However the majority of people have grown up with the standard Windows, they know it, they like it. Tearing away the familiar start button while saying #dealwithit is not an acceptable solution.

If this was going to be a true transitional OS, then it should have had the Metro interface, and also a safety net start button present. The next iteration could have had just the Metro interface as people would have had the freedom to explore it, rather than the stress of being forced to learn it. I'm excited for Windows 8.1 for two reasons, first, it will help people transition into the OS better. Second, I wont have to hear every single customer complain about how much they absolutely hate it. 1 year in, and I've had 0 customers ever say the like Windows 8.

The hot-corners and charms bars and windows-button-that-is-invisible on Win8 is bad, bad, bad interface design. It's counter-intuitive and less accessible. You find it by accident, not by exploration. It's scattered and distributed over multiple screen areas.

Did I mention it's bad interface design?

I find this hilarious because when MS didn't have hot corners, everyone was raving about hot corners about OS X.

Not everyone, just the talking heads in the tech media. Outside of "journalists" trying to force an Apple dominated future on us, I don't think anyone really thought that hot corners were such a hot idea.